A Piece for Cass

Trump and his supporters are responsible for much of our current glut of contempt, but they are hardly the only perpetrators of it. Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment qualifies as contempt, although her subsequent expression of regret undid some of its effects. Opponents of Trump have also directed plenty of contempt at both Trump himself — as we saw in some of the signs brandished at Saturday’s marches across the country — and at the people who voted for him, particularly rural voters without much education. Contempt has been injected into our public space from all sides.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to conclude that all expressions of contempt are equally bad. Contempt occurs in the context of social relationships that are themselves characterized by power differences.... It may seem as though the best response to Trump’s contempt is to return it in kind, treating him the same way he treats others. The trouble, though, is that contempt toward Trump does not function in the same way that his contempt toward others functions. Even if we grant that Trump deserves contempt for his attitudes and behaviors, his powerful social position insulates him from the worst of contempt’s effects. It is simply not possible to disregard or diminish the agency of the president of the United States. This means that contempt is not a particularly useful weapon in the battle against bigotry or misogyny. The socially vulnerable cannot wield it effectively precisely because of their social vulnerability.

The better strategy for those who are already disempowered is to reject contempt on its face. Returning contempt for contempt legitimizes its presence in the public sphere. The only ones who benefit from this legitimacy are the people powerful enough to use contempt to draw the boundaries of the political community as they see fit.

We'll see if people are prepared to listen to her. It's an instrumental argument -- the reason not to engage in contempt is not that it's morally wrong, but because it works to the opponent's advantage. That kind of argument might be more persuasive than a genuinely moral one, in a diverse nation with little remaining agreement on what (if anything) rightly grounds morality.

Of course, the problem with an instrumental argument like this is that it doesn't cut both ways. If the reason to avoid contempt is that it empowers Trump at the expense of others, then that's also a reason for Trump and his supporters to actively choose to use contempt. By the same token, it suggests that those who privately hold us in contempt should insist on universal respect only until they manage to come to power -- after which point, expressing their contempt for us becomes a useful tool for them.

The funny thing is that she nods at an ethical/moral argument when she writes, "Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to conclude that all expressions of contempt are equally bad."

I gather she believes that Trump's sort of contempt is worse because it is directed at the Powerless (i.e., the designated victim class, whether or not they are in fact the victims or even a meaningful class). But it ends up reading that contempt from the Powerless is worse, because her real argument turns out to be instrumental and their contempt expressions are counterproductive.

At any rate, it's at least a nudge in the direction of restoring civilizational norms to public discourse -- if only until 'we win,' and if only because it is a better strategy (for now).

Well, it reminds me of the sign I once saw at a Planned Parenthood rally, back when I thought the important thing was to form a human wall around the facility to protect the patients from the awful pro-life marchers. One of them had a sign that read, "I love you, and I'd fight for your life, too." It really hit me. I've mentioned it often since then, and oddly enough the reaction I often get from pro-abortion people is "I'm sure you're making that up."

"At any rate, it's at least a nudge in the direction of restoring civilizational norms to public discourse -- if only until 'we win,' and if only because it is a better strategy (for now)."

This is the way you get people to stop and listen to you for a minute and maybe change their actions in the immediate. Then you have an opening to delve further into the finer points. My Dad is a pretty set person- and this is the technique that works to get him to reconsider something. Works every time.

I've heard it said that a marriage can survive anything- lies, cheating, affairs, but not contempt. It's corrosive. I think it's a good observation on her part that this is where we're at. Maybe it's not too late to arrest the corrosion in the relationship of our citizenry.

Jonathan Haidt (whom I quote all the time) had something a while back about, "How do you get someone who disagrees with you to consider your views?"

The answer turned out to be, "You need some kind of bond of trust with the person first - otherwise, they discount everything you say." IOW, if people feel they have some common ground, and that they like and/or trust the person they're talking to, AND they don't feel attacked or belittled, it's easier to get them to actually listen to you.

What a shocker. At the bottom of all this is a simple concept, upon which rests all of civilization: the reasonable expectation of reciprocity. The absence of this fragile expectation is poison.

Human stratagems are a fool's gambit in the eyes of the divine. Even to Lucifer, who was once the bright one. For as much as humanity has practiced the arts of propaganda and manipulation, they cannot match Lucifer still in the arts of seduction, manipulation, or warfare.